Taiwan is considered to be one of the most progressive countries in Asia, but it has no asylum law. Due to its precarious political status and complicated relationship with China, there are serious concerns.
However, what makes the situation direr is the lack of a discussion on the issue in Taiwanese society.
What do Taiwanese think of passing an asylum law and how do they perceive refugees? Taiwan has accepted international human rights treaties and incorporated them into domestic law, thus having the obligation of non-refoulement, but in the absence of an asylum system, the nation has not been able to handle people coming to Taiwan seeking protection.
The international review committee of the human rights covenants that Taiwan has adopted as domestic law has repeatedly recommended a “speedy adoption of an asylum law, which should also include the principle of non-refoulement.”
However, there has been little progress.
There are serious concerns surrounding the topic of asylum, and there is no social dialogue on this (with the exception of in 2019 when Hong Kongers started arriving en masse to Taiwan). The nation’s political elites have perhaps purposely kept it that way.
There have been only few nationwide representative polls on people’s perceptions and attitudes toward refugees and a hypothetical asylum policy, and even fewer surveys that had a broader focus than on people arriving from Hong Kong.
Why are such polls important? They give a good glimpse into people’s perceptions, and taking them into consideration is important because they often have real-world implications.
Taiwanese politicians heavily depend on public opinion, especially on sensitive topics that involve the nation’s relationship with China, and discussing a potential asylum law in Taiwan inevitably touches on cross-strait relations.
One of the few large-scale nationwide representative surveys was conducted in May and June, providing a comprehensive picture of people’s preferences when it comes to refugees and a potential asylum law.
Regarding potential asylum mechanisms in Taiwan, slightly more people agreed than disagreed with passing some kind of a refugee act (regardless of whether that included Chinese nationals), while most people did not have an opinion on this — which reflects the lack of discussion in Taiwanese society.
If Taiwan were to pass an asylum law, 33 percent of respondents believed it would worsen relations with China, while 19 percent believed it would not, and 47 did not have an opinion. If Taiwan were to pass such a law, 56 percent believed it would be too costly for Taiwan’s budget.
On the other hand, 50 percent believed that passing such a law would highlight the human rights values of Taiwan, and the difference between Taiwan and China.
However, on all three questions, the answer given most often was “neither agree nor disagree,” which can be interpreted as people not having clear opinions on the issue.
There was almost no difference between the answers of pan-blue and pan-green camp supporters, except for on the human rights values question, where more pan-green supporters (59 percent) than pan-blue supporters (46 percent) said it would highlight Taiwan’s values.
When it comes to asylum seekers, the potential beneficiaries of such a law, most groups (whether ethnic or religious) — Muslims, immigrants, Africans, Rohingya, Uighurs and Tibetans — were viewed rather positively, with immigrants in general viewed most positively (63 percent), followed by Tibetans (62 percent) and Uighurs (59 percent). Chinese constitute an exception, being viewed negatively by 49 percent of respondents.
Rohingya, while viewed more positively than negatively, had the most neutral answers (20 percent), which might indicate that they are not well-known in Taiwan, and people thus tend not to have an opinion.
Rohingya are a displaced minority from Myanmar, mostly living in refugee camps in Bangladesh.
More specifically, asked about accepting certain groups of refugees, Taiwanese were most favorable toward people from Hong Kong (66 percent), Tibet (58 percent) and war refugees from other countries (55 percent), but again rather unfavorable toward refugees from China (44 percent).
Young people were the least willing to accept Chinese refugees, while they were the most willing to accept Hong Kongers. Men were more willing than women to accept refugees. (The data does not provide enough information as to why.)
Overall, the acceptance rate of refugees was quite high, with pan-blue-leaning people being more willing to accept refugees, especially Chinese (57 percent of pan-blue-leaning people versus 42 percent of pan-green-leaning people), but also war refugees. Interestingly, people without such political leanings seemed to be less decided on whether to accept refugees.
Looking closer at people’s attitudes toward various segments of Chinese people, respondents were most critical of Chinese politicians (76 percent), surprisingly followed by Chinese dissidents (57 percent), and the least critical of Chinese students (33 percent) and spouses (32 percent).
Most respondents (58 percent) even supported the resettlement of Rohingya to Taiwan, compared with 29 percent who were against it. Clearly younger people were more inclined to resettle them than older people, and again, men a little more than women.
While it is apparent from the data that there has long been a lack of discussion about asylum, the data also showed that Taiwanese tend to agree that the nation needs a proper asylum system and should not handle incoming people on a case-by-case basis as has been done until now.
Also, refugees are seen rather positively than negatively, with people from China as an exception, and Taiwanese are willing to accept them in Taiwan.
Nevertheless, the results from the survey should be understood in the context of the political climate in which the answers were collected — only a few weeks after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which fueled concern over China’s plans for Taiwan.
Many in Taiwan speculate that the odds of an invasion by China have increased. With such fears of their own future, people tend to be more compassionate toward others who are forced to leave their country and seek refuge elsewhere.
At the same time, the lower willingness to accept Chinese as refugees leads back to the issue of complicated relations between Taiwan and China, and highlights the need for social dialogue before any solution — whether an asylum system including or excluding Chinese — can be accepted.
Kristina Kironska is a socially engaged interdisciplinary academic with experience in Taiwan affairs, central and eastern Europe-China relations, Myanmar studies, human rights, election observation and advocacy. She is conducting research within the Sinophone Borderlands project administered by Palacky University Olomouc. She is also advocacy director at the Central European Institute of Asian Studies and board director of Amnesty International Slovakia.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS